CLSC: Minutes 19 November 2003

[Mavis Cournane <mavis.cournane@cognitran.com>]

Dear members of the CLSC
attached are the minutes of the CLSC meeting on 19 November. The general UBL 
mailing list will be used to conduct business until the CLSC mailing list has 
been set up.

Regards
Mavis Cournane (Co-chair)
Cognitran Ltd


Roll Call
Anne Hendry (AH) (voting)
Mavis Cournane (MHC) (voting)
Ken Holman (KH) (voting)
Marty Burns (MB) (prospective)
Arofan Gregory (AG) (prospective)

Regrets
Sue Probert
Tony Coates

AWOL
Gunther Stuhec
Chee Kai Chin

1. Review of Agenda and welcome by the co-chairs (Mavis Cournane, Ken
Holman, Sue Probert).



Initially we will have a call every week to get the work underway.
The calls will be scheduled  for 2 hours at this time 10:30-12:30 PST

AG: There is some disagreement if we need to finish the position paper first.
MHC: The controlled copy will be PDF. We will be working from the June position 
paper.
We have two inputs to the NDR position paper - Gunther's submission and the 
NIST submission.
KH: I would like to see about making the changes in the model rather than the 
instance.

AG: This groups will be synthesis
MB: My impression is that each submission presents a different aspect of the 
core.
Use cases will be very important for evaluating different proposals.

AG: All the propsals will work mechanistically. You are going to put complexity 
on the contract between trading papers,
or you deal with the complexity in the XML. We have to make a decision of where 
we put the complexity.


AH: It is interesting you are raising who our target audience is. This will be 
discussed in the implementation SC.
One of the criteria for implementation is which market segment will the TC want 
to focus on.

2. Review of Charter and membership


The following members are eligible for the following status:
Mavis Cournane (voting)
Sue Probert (voting)
Ken Holman (voting)
Arofan Gregory (prospective)
Anne Hendry (voting)
Gunther Stuhec (voting)
Tony Coates (voting)
Chee Kai-Chin (voting)
Marty Burns (prospective)

Action:
MHC will check with Jon Bosak if Marty needs to be a voting member of the TC 
first before he can be a voting 
member of the SC.

MHC will check with Guther, Tony and Chee Kai and see if they intend to be 
voting members.


For now we will be using ubl list until the CLSC mailing list is sorted out. 
People should prefix any postings to the general UBL with CLSC
for now to help with sorting.

3. Agreement of Timescales and Strategy

We have three months to do what has asked of us in the plenary in San Francisco:
The tasks are:
1. Complete the Code List position paper taking in to account the input 
received and publish it as a TC Draft
2. Define a standard schema template for code lists based on existing NDR 
specifications
3. Work with NDR on any changes
4. Work with LCSC to create "standard" and "stock" code lists for inclusion 
with UBL 1.0 FCS.
5. Define a maintenance and versioning strategy for the code lists included in 
UBL


MHC: I propose that we will begin with looking at the June 9th Code List 
position paper (v5) sent out by me to the UBL list. 

We will then look at the inputs to it. There are 4 inputs we will look at:
- Gunther's input to the June 9th paper (v5)
- The Montreal Methodology (Ken will provide the link for Mavis to send out)
- EBSC Memo (Marty to provide Mavis with the link to send out)
- EBSC input to version 4 of the NDR code list position paper.

MHC: Next we will look specifically at the June 9th Code List position paper 
and determine what the issues are with it.
Homework for everybody next week will be to have studied this and be prepared 
for the walk through.
Who will volunteer to conduct the walk through?

AG: Mavis I am happy to do this.

MHC: Ok, so next week Arofan will walk us through the document. THis will be 
the core from which we will direct our efforts.
We will then look at the other inputs. Which input will we start with?

KH: I think that Gunther's paper is the next logical ste.

MHC: Are we agreed. Following this then we will look at the other inputs as 
well to make sure we understand all
the issues and approaches open to us. Do we have any issues that we know about 
so far?

KH: The instance or model approach is an issue wit the June paper. Mechanically 
both work, so we need to recommend an approach.

MHC: We will need to liaise with NDR and LCSC every step of the way on this to 
ensure that all parties are
in alignment. I will understake to give a weekly CLSC report on the NDR call.
AH: Sue or myself will do the same for LCSC.

MHC: We will ensure that the code list TC spec and the relevant NDR section 
will be aligned.

AH: In terms of things to reviewing shouldn't we be reviewing NDR Document Code 
List Section
MHC: I have done some editing of the section, but much of it is waiting input 
from us.
AG: Our solution has to be expressed in a normative way. Section 6 of NDR will 
not be simple to write.

MHC: We need to agree an approach for editing the position paper and the 
ensuing TC draft. This time round
I propose we have a lead editor and an editorial panel
Agreed: Arofan will be the initial lead editor, the editiorial panel will 
comprise of Ken, Marty.